# Religion



## Minish

Because I'm curious! And previous threads on religion had crappy polls.

...not that mine is any better, feel free to yell at me if it looks stupid. It's actually really hard to make a poll on this. And I included neo-paganism because it's the biggest religion after the Big Six in the UK (if you disinclude Jedis), so screw you. :P Also, I highly doubt TCoD has a large but hidden Sikh population, but I's feel weird putting them in Other when they're one of the Big Six. So yeah, whatever.

I'm a neo-pagan, raised atheist.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

Eh, really lazy Christian, I guess. I like to believe in a god, but I don't really care about the details put forth in the Bible and stuff and I don't pretend to now what that god might do with me after I die.

I'm hoping for something fun.


----------



## Arylett Charnoa

Agnostic or atheist or something like that. But I have my own little spiritual beliefs about how things work, something like a religion in my head.


----------



## Minish

Arylett Dawnsborough said:


> Agnostic or atheist or something like that. But I have my own little spiritual beliefs about how things work, something like a religion in my head.


Same. :D Or rather, I had my own odd spiritual beliefs in my head that didn't seem to fit anywhere, and then I found that neo-paganism fit it rather well.

That's actually what I don't like about organised religion like Christianity. It's too much of "this is you what you believe" instead of "what can you bring to the religion?". Plus a lot of Christianity is stuff that you have to be told before you believe it, which is a... really strange idea, because who's to say what some guys wrote down thousands of years ago is the truth for _you_?

...I'll shut up now. XD


----------



## spaekle

Atheist. 

Raised christian if it matters, although I honestly have no clue what the hell my family's denomination is. They're protestant, at least. 

My facebook says I'm a frisbeetarian though. :v


----------



## Tailsy

Raised Christian (Catholic, lol Irish immigrant family), but I'm an atheist. If you don't bother me about religion, then I won't bother you about it. S'cool with me.


----------



## Anthony

neo carpatheist/scientologist.


----------



## opaltiger

Atheist. Raised nothing. You'd have to go pretty far back in our family tree to find someone who is honestly religious, I think.


----------



## Autumn

Atheist, raised Unitarian Universalist.


----------



## Flygon1

Agnostic. However, much of my family is Unorthodox (is that the term?) Jewish, so I follow many of the same morals and I attend Passover and such.


----------



## departuresong

I'm agnostic if anybody asks me, but honestly? Probably leaning more towards atheist at this point.


----------



## Arylett Charnoa

Cirrus said:


> Same. :D Or rather, I had my own odd spiritual beliefs in my head that didn't seem to fit anywhere, and then I found that neo-paganism fit it rather well.


Hmm... perhaps I'll check it out, this neo-paganism. I'll admit, from what I've heard of it, I've always found it fascinating.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

I'm protestantal Christian, raised as a Catholic
Well, when my parents separated, my mom turned protestant, so.
I have my doubts, as all do, but I hang on.


----------



## Esque

Bernard Gotfryd quote: "I believe in God, but organized religion does not do anyone any good."  (May be mildly inaccurate)

I definitely believe in God.  And I believe in God for personal reasons, and because my past is darker than my present.  

When I was little, my family was laxly protestant.  We went to church on Sunday and were atheists the rest of the week.  Then they suddenly became radically protestant - we went to church four-five times a week.  Then we left the protestant church and joined the Catholic church, and were subsequently shunned by the protestants.  Now, I'm back to going to church 4-5 times a week.  

I know I believe in God.
I just don't know whether I believe in church.


----------



## Wargle

Atheist raised Baptist Christian.

I have never been to church, until one day when I was like 11, and a friend invited me. But after 10 3/4 years of no religion but carefully avoiding swearing and say Oh my God, it was hard to grasp. So I kinda dropped out, and turned Atheist. 

But sometimes I kinda think if there is a god and when I die I'm screwed.

A quote I heard on History channel, "On Mondays thru Wednesdays, I believe in God, on Thursdays thru Saturdays, I doubt his existence. On Sundays I rest."


----------



## Green

Atheist. Everyone at school hates me more for it and my parents hate me for it too. :v


----------



## Storm Earth and Fire

Theravada Buddhist, raised Mahayana.

I have dabbled in Christianity before, as in I've been to church twice. Chinese church was cool, they served free food and I met some cool people. Plain old white church (some denomination) was not so cool.

I work outside of my friends' religious debates somehow, it's very nice because I frankly don't care and thusly would rather stay outside.

My belief in God is in this constant flux, as it depends on who I'm talking to.


----------



## Togetic

Half Christian - Half Scien....Yeah

It's my own religion, where I believe a higher deity (God) triggered the Big Bang, triggered the volcanic eruptions and such and such, all the way up to today. However, this deity has no morality, and is therefore completely neutral.

Why yes I am screwed up.


----------



## Zuu

i was raised a baptist christian, "converted" to paganism when i was around twelve, became agnostic around fourteen, and started to identify as atheist around fifteen/sixteen. i am probably closer to apatheism now, as it is, but ... yes.

sometimes delusional beliefs pop up in my head every once in a while (such as the paganism stint around twelve, i was also at one point extremely interested in necromancy) but they go away rather quickly.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

Atheist.


----------



## goldenquagsire

Atheist, raised atheist from a family of atheists from around three generations ago.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

Atheist. Raised Catholic, then went non-denominational, then went atheist.


----------



## @lex

Christian. And I believe that religion is more tradition that faith. Being Christian has less to do with believing that the son of God died for our sins than with celebrating Christmas. Likewise for all other religions.

So, I'd say anyone who exclusively celebrates Christmas and Easter and all of them Christian holidays is indeed Christian :D

And yeah, my grasp of other religions isn't the greatest...


----------



## Harlequin

I always dislike that "atheism" is included rather than "no religious beliefs" but whatevs, can't please everyone.

I'm an atheist. I've never been anything other than an atheist, and aside from at school no religious beliefs were ever presented to me.


----------



## Flora

i'm some sort of christian...

raised catholic but i have _so many problems with it_ that i have excommunicated myself


----------



## Stormecho

I am searching for something to believe in that isn't Christian. So... agnostic?


----------



## Tarvos

Atheist. Also, Judaism is markedly different from Christianity and should be separate on the list. Also, Jewish religion differs from Jewish culture (i.e. I know people that consider themselves Jewish by ethnicity but are not religious).


----------



## see ya

I was raised Christian by non-denominational mom (really, she was too lazy to stick to one denomination more than anything). My dad was an atheist, but he stayed out of our religious upbringing and wanted me and my brother to make our own decisions about religion. I was Christian for a long time, but I was never a very strong believer. After toying with a few other beliefs (Wicca and Buddhism), I eventually became a hard atheist, and I'm very happy with that.


----------



## Minish

Watershed said:


> Atheist. Also, Judaism is markedly different from Christianity and should be separate on the list. Also, Jewish religion differs from Jewish culture (i.e. I know people that consider themselves Jewish by ethnicity but are not religious).


Ahhh sorry, I really know absolutely nothing about Judaism. But I believe they are... _somewhat_ connected or something so I put them together. :(


----------



## Mercy

Agnostic, I guess? And I wasn't raised as anything. My parents wanted my sister and I to have the freedom of deciding.

i actually really couldn't care less, so... :x


----------



## Tarvos

Cirrus said:


> Ahhh sorry, I really know absolutely nothing about Judaism. But I believe they are... _somewhat_ connected or something so I put them together. :(


Christianity is a descendant of Judaism - they share part of their holy books (most of the Old Testament is shared by both although I believe that the stories aren't written in exactly the same way...). You can barely classify them as being the same as the nature of their religion is very different: Christianity has core moral codes - Judaism doesn't.

Jews are not allowed to utter the name of God (often writing it as G-d or G!d) instead).

A lot more things are different.

But I don't really expect anybody to study that kind of stuff, so don't take it personally.


----------



## Autumn

Judaism also doesn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

can we lump judaism, christianity, and islam all into "abrahamic religions"? it's not like they're significantly different from each other. except, well, culturally?


----------



## Esque

sreservoir said:


> can we lump judaism, christianity, and islam all into "abrahamic religions"? it's not like they're significantly different from each other. except, well, culturally?


No. 
You'd have every orthodox member of each of them on your heels trying to kill you.  Because while the book of faith is relatively the same, the practice is radically different.  When it's existent, anyway.


----------



## Minish

Watershed said:


> Jews are not allowed to utter the name of God (often writing it as G-d or G!d) instead).


...my religious studies exam was split up into different courses, all on the same exam, so Judaism would be right under Christianity even though we're meant to ignore it. Judaism wasn't mentioned, only 'G-d' and I seriously thought this was some kind of futuristic deity pronounced 'Jee-dee'. >_>

Which kind of proves just how shittily we're taught about this kind of stuff at school.

sreservoir: I would have used Abrahamic religions, but I decided to split most of them for the reason Esque said. And before that I was going to just put monotheism, but I supposed that's kind of vague and might offend someone easily offended.


----------



## Tarvos

Leafpool said:


> Judaism also doesn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.


No, since this is obviously a New Testament tenet - and Judaism only has like the first five books of the Old Testament. So that is implied, of course. But yes, that is a great, great difference with Christianity who has Jesus as a central character.

I agree, we should split all the Abrahamic religions because the core basis, even though they share a historical origin, their central ideas are very different. Noting the historical similarities is fun, though. Makes you see humans are diverse in their imagination but not their nature.

Cirrus - I wasn't taught the God thing at school either, I believe. Learnt it from reading about gods and mythology myself. Do not rely on formal, institutional education to teach you everything. It is very good at making you learn what they want you to learn. Curiosity is good.


----------



## Saith

Voted other, 'cause I'm a Naytheist.
I believe a deity (deities?) exist, but I think he's a cock.
When I die, the first thing I want to do is plant my foot into his omnidimensional ball sacks.


----------



## Wargle

Well judging by the above post, I spent 2-3 years as a Naytheist. But then I went to full Atheism.

And is it just me, or is the whole 'Freedom of Religion' thing in the United States becoming more and more of a 'Freedom of Christianity' thing?

This is what I get from that rule anymore:​'Sure you can have whatever religion you want but unless you're Christian you're a Freak of Nature.'


----------



## spaekle

Well, according to my fundamentalist parents, "it's freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion olololololo" 

That was actually in response to the whole "references to god in pledge/on money/etc" debate but whatever.

Edit: I love the poll results so far, hahahaha.


----------



## see ya

Speaking of, you know what I really hate? People who say "Well having 'Under God' plastered on everything is a-okay because 'God' can mean any God, so it covers all religions lol!" Uuh, no it doesn't. What about polytheistic religions? Or...*gasp* people who don't have a God in the first place. It really is a BS argument, yet I hear it everywhere.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

Esque said:


> No.
> You'd have every orthodox member of each of them on your heels trying to kill you.  Because while the book of faith is relatively the same, the practice is radically different.  When it's existent, anyway.


WHOOSH!


----------



## ultraviolet

like most of tcod, atheist

I really dislike the 'I believe in god but all the religions have it wrong' reasoning, too


----------



## 1. Luftballon

I prefer the 'sure, god, whatever, but it got distracted by something shiny a long time ago' sort.


----------



## Automata heart

i believe a mix of things. i was raised Anglican (sort of), and baptised when i was a baby, but now i'm a spiritualist/Shintoist/Buddhist and many others. i get something out of every religion, but i'm kinda floating. hare Krishna.


----------



## Sandora

I was raised as a Catholic and basically forced into practicing the religion. 
However, when I did have a say in the matter, I completely turned my back on it.
 My mother knew better than to try telling me to attend church services since I was 15. ): 
Now, I'm just unsure of what to believe in exactly, so I would consider myself agnostic. ^^ I believe in reincarnation, also.


----------



## Mewtwo

I voted Christianity, but like Blastoise, a lazy one. I slip up and swear and say "Oh My God" a lot, so...


----------



## Zuu

Mewtwo said:


> I voted Christianity, but like Blastoise, a lazy one. I slip up and swear and say "Oh My God" a lot, so...


if people actually read the Bible, most Christians would realize that saying "oh my God" is _not_ taking the Lord's name in vain. "God damn you", perhaps, but "oh my God"? no. and I'm tired of hearing people telling me to stop "taking the Lord's name in vain" while they sin behind His back every day. so you shouldn't worry about it, either.

also why do people believe in reincarnation?


----------



## Mewtwo

Mewtwo said:


> I voted Christianity, but like Blastoise, a lazy one. I slip up and *swear*(edit note: like fuck and stuff) and say "Oh My God" a lot, so...


_That_, however, Dezzuu...

Anyways, I really don't know why people believe in it. I see a valid point, and can see why they'd feel about it, but I don't believe in it.


----------



## Autumn

Dezzuu said:


> also why do people believe in reincarnation?


it's an interesting concept :/ also I guess people don't want to think that there's ever going to be a point in time when they're *gasp* not around anymore.


----------



## Zuu

I don't see valid points at all, I just see it as wishful thinking.

as for "swearing", as far as I can tell the Bible doesn't address what we see as "cursing" (e.g., fuck, shit, damn). it mentions that cursing people, rather than praising people, is a sin (I think) but it is my opinion that if anyone tells you that the Bible says you can't say "fuck", they are a liar. you're not supposed to speak evilly, but is swearing inherently evil? many moral and virtuous people swear, because it is just a way to relieve stress and, in some cases, a source of humor.

Leafpool: not really a justification to believe in something. I think lichdom is an interesting concept, and I sure as hell want to be a lich, but it just ain't gonna happen.

unless I become a *technolich*. FUCK YEAH


----------



## Autumn

Dezzuu said:


> Leafpool: not really a justification to believe in something.


eh, true. people are shallow.


----------



## ultraviolet

> as for "swearing", as far as I can tell the Bible doesn't address what  we see as "cursing" (e.g., fuck, shit, damn).


well I mean apart from 'damn' for reasons you've already said, I'd have to agree, especially as words like fuck and shit are very new words. o.o


----------



## Minish

People believe in reincarnation because they think the idea that the soul or whatever lives on in the cycle of nature makes sense.

Of course, that's the hippie neo-pagan yay nature viewpoint, so yeah. I don't really know much about other forms of reincarnation and don't really agree with the idea of soul transmigration. But I think the idea that nature sustains its own life, on and on and on, is a lot more sensibile -- not to mention healthier -- than ascension to some supernatural heaven.


----------



## ZimD

i'm sort of an atheist, sort of agnostic. depends how i'm feeling that day, my religious views change often.

i don't think about it often though, because to me it doesn't matter at all, just because if there is a god he created the universe billions of years ago so it doesn't really affect my life at all. also doesn't affect me because i don't think he's going to send me to hell just because i don't totally believe in him, because that would mean ghandi would go to hell and fuck that. if there is a god he's cool with me not caring whether or not he exists, if there isn't a god which there probably isn't then i didn't waste my life believing in something that didn't exist. it's like the opposite of pascal's wager


----------



## Zuu

ultraviolet said:


> well I mean apart from 'damn' for reasons you've already said, I'd have to agree, especially as words like fuck and shit are very new words. o.o


well yeah but I mean you know taboo language in general.

Zim: you sound sort of like an apatheist.



			
				Cirrus said:
			
		

> But I think the idea that nature sustains its own life, on and on and on, is a lot more sensibile -- not to mention healthier -- than ascension to some supernatural heaven.


sure. but there's no reason to believe that the earth (or "nature", this odd deity that so many people are worshiping now) has any supernatural means of doing this, especially by recycling souls. especially since we don't know whether souls exist or not anyway.


----------



## ZimD

Dezzuu said:


> Zim: you sound sort of like an apatheist.


too lazy to google that but based just on the name yeah that sounds about right


----------



## Minish

Dezzuu said:


> sure. but there's no reason to believe that the earth (or "nature", this odd deity that so many people are worshiping now) has any supernatural means of doing this, especially by recycling souls. especially since we don't know whether souls exist or not anyway.


...people have worshipped the earth/nature for thousands and thousands and thousands of years but okay (and for particular parts of nature, pretty much forever).

Most people who believe in nature "recycling" don't really believe in souls by the common definition. Of course we don't know whether souls exist or not, but... that's kind of not what belief is about, which it receives fair criticism for.


----------



## Zuu

I'm well aware of the history of nature worship (and I am sort of hurt that you actually had to say that). I am also well aware that there is a large number of new age lunatics who are "worshiping" nature for many silly reasons, as of late, in civilized societies, when I really think we have moved past that. 

allow me to clarify what I think, before I go on: I think we're born out of this earth and so we should certainly revere it (I am a staunch environmentalist) but worshiping *anything*, in my opinion, belittles ourselves and I see little point in it. 

I'm not sure what you're saying after that, however. If not the common definition of the "soul" (which I'm not even too aware of myself!), what *do* you/they believe in? I'd like you to sort of explain where you're coming from.


----------



## Minish

Dezzuu said:


> I'm well aware of the history of nature worship (and I am sort of hurt that you actually had to say that). I am also well aware that there is a large number of new age lunatics who are "worshiping" nature for many silly reasons, as of late, in civilized societies, when I really think we have moved past that.
> 
> allow me to clarify what I think, before I go on: I think we're born out of this earth and so we should certainly revere it (I am a staunch environmentalist) but worshiping *anything*, in my opinion, belittles ourselves and I see little point in it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying after that, however. If not the common definition of the "soul" (which I'm not even too aware of myself!), what *do* you/they believe in? I'd like you to sort of explain where you're coming from.


Well, it seemed as though you were implying this "odd deity" is some totally quaint new deity us new age lunatics thought up. What are the silly reasons? I personally think nature is the only thing worthy of "worship"; it's the only thing that quite obviously sustains us as opposed to the bizarre, impersonal omnipotent god most monotheist religions follow. I consider Abrahamic monotheism a regression from nature worship.

When I say worship, by the way, I don't mean Abrahamic worship. I guess a better word would be celebration, or reverence? I don't worship anything out of a feeling of inferiority or fear.

I guess my idea of a soul is... more similar to conscious energy (bear in mind that I'm a bit of an animist as well). In reincarnation it would work how the energy returns to the earth and has little to do with humanity anymore. One day it will return to sustain life. To be honest, I don't really care about what happens after death, it's not like it's something that will affect me or is of much consequence to me.

I'm not sure how to explain it because I think things like this are outside of human comprehension, and I'm not used to having to because I rarely discuss my beliefs outside of a neo-pagan context as nobody else actually gives a benevolent damn. I know my beliefs have little place here whatever I say so please just agree with me to firmly disagree and avoid insulting me.


----------



## Zuu

reverence for nature is fine. I understand that.

I will continue to wonder why you hold these beliefs especially when you admit that they are "outside of human comprehension" and I will certainly disagree with you, but I have little intention to insult you.


----------



## Porygon

Another atheist.


----------



## Tarvos

Cirrus said:


> ...people have worshipped the earth/nature for thousands and thousands and thousands of years but okay (and for particular parts of nature, pretty much forever).


The fact that people worship something or believe something doesn't make it true. Many children believe in Santa Claus (or your local variety tale of gift-giving, such as Sinterklaas where I live) but that doesn't ensure the existence of Joulupukki.


----------



## Minish

Watershed said:


> The fact that people worship something or believe something doesn't make it true. Many children believe in Santa Claus (or your local variety tale of gift-giving, such as Sinterklaas where I live) but that doesn't ensure the existence of Joulupukki.


Not scientifically, perhaps. But one of the reasons I hate proselytism is because everyone needs different beliefs -- like the natural world, only diversity can save religion. My beliefs aren't necessarily right for you, and vice versa. If it can inspire and sustain someone, then that's more important than what is or isn't staring them in the face.

To me, Christianity isn't truth, and to Christians, it is truth. But even if I died and realised that religion is a lot less surreal than I had thought and I was going to heaven, I wouldn't regret my life of an alternative belief.


----------



## Elliekat

On the nature-worship thing:
I'm not going to argue for Chrisianity with anyone, since I believe everyone can believe what they want and it's not my place to change it unless you're willing for me to. But I do think we should definitely respect and hold nature in high regard- not necessarily worship per se, but definitely respect, because God is in every part of nature.

I'm sorry if that made no sense, sometimes it doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

We should respect it because God is in it and not because we need it to survive?


----------



## Elliekat

Well, that too. I just don't think that the only place God is in is a church, I think he/she/whatever you believe is in nature too, and therefore it should be respected and not just taken for granted.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

I see what you're saying, Ellie, but by that logic we should respect molten hot magma since God is in that. >:I So, yeah, woot, go whatever deity you do(n't) believe in for making the outsidy parts of the planet pretty.~


----------



## Autumn

Respect the oil spill, God's there too!


----------



## Green

and hitler, because he's god's child!

(i'm crossing the line but w/e)


----------



## Tailsy

KronoGreen said:


> and hitler, because he's god's child!
> 
> (i'm crossing the line but w/e)


Dammit, we almost had a good argument there! You just _had_ to, didn't you?


----------



## Autumn

KronoGreen said:


> (i'm crossing the line but w/e)


God is in the line, too!


----------



## Barubu

God is in the swan-thingy,too!


----------



## Karkat Vantas

Technically I'm Catholic but I disagree with the church on everything. My main beef is that people assume that religion is the main factor in getting into heaven; by that logic you could be the nicest person in the world, but if you're Muslim, you're going to hell. That is incredibly stupid.

I do believe in some type of deity starting the universe; I find it hard to imagine that the Big Bang could have occurred naturally. That being said, I don't really think that said deity did anything of note after that. That would make me a deist, correct?


----------



## Elliekat

Kammington said:


> Technically I'm Catholic but I disagree with the church on everything. My main beef is that people assume that religion is the main factor in getting into heaven; by that logic you could be the nicest person in the world, but if you're Muslim, you're going to hell. That is incredibly stupid.


This is basically how I feel on a lot of things. Except I'm not Catholic, actually, I have no idea what "kind" of Christian I'm supposed to be now. Why does it matter, anyway?


----------



## Tarvos

> Not scientifically, perhaps. But one of the reasons I hate proselytism is because everyone needs different beliefs -- like the natural world, only diversity can save religion. My beliefs aren't necessarily right for you, and vice versa. If it can inspire and sustain someone, then that's more important than what is or isn't staring them in the face.


We don't need different beliefs for the sake of having diversity, that's nonsense. We don't need to have ten colours of cars for the sake of having them either. We need beliefs that are correct, or, in case there are not enough facts, a theory that is supported by evidence. Make up as many of these as you will - but a belief without evidence is like a limp man without crutches. Creativity for new ideas is only useful when you don't know what you're dealing with. If you don't need it, having a different belief for the sake of it is just pointless rebellious guff.


----------



## Minish

Watershed said:


> We don't need different beliefs for the sake of having diversity, that's nonsense. We don't need to have ten colours of cars for the sake of having them either. We need beliefs that are correct, or, in case there are not enough facts, a theory that is supported by evidence. Make up as many of these as you will - but a belief without evidence is like a limp man without crutches. Creativity for new ideas is only useful when you don't know what you're dealing with. If you don't need it, having a different belief for the sake of it is just pointless rebellious guff.


That's... not really what I'm saying. Differing beliefs occur naturally, I'm saying that it's unfair to condemn those which you disagree with because a world in which everyone believed the same about divinity would be a very dull world indeed. I don't have a different belief because I'm trying to be ~rebellious~, I have a different belief because _I don't like/agree with yours_.

The belief with the most scientific evidence behind it isn't going to be the one that necessarily wins me over. I'm trying to find something that suits me and makes me happy. If it turns out that life is black-and-white, true-and-false and not as comfortably abstract as I think it is now, then I won't regret a life in which I had much prettier delusions one tiny bit.

Acting like faith should be like maths is just totally missing the point.


----------



## Zuu

if religion originated in order to explain our existence and our surroundings, why would you try to cling onto these beliefs when we now have science to explain everything accurately? what upsets me the most isn't the fact that you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself, it's the fact that you can actually force yourself to believe these things when I can't. I don't understand it.

and I don't understand deluding yourself to be happy, either.

Kammington: roughly, that makes you a deist, yeah. I might say there are a few other prerequisites but I've found deists to have fairly varied beliefs.


----------



## Minish

Well, it's not like I'm a firm believer who refuses to see anything else. I guess technically I'm strictly agnostic, but I always had these odd little random beliefs ever since I was little and suddenly discovered that there was a name for them...

I'm not forcing myself to believe anything, and I understand how science can explain pretty much everything around us. But to be cliché, I believe there genuinely is something "more" out there. I don't know what that more is but what I believe now feels about right.


----------



## opaltiger

Kammington said:


> I find it hard to imagine that the Big Bang could have occurred naturally.


Why?


----------



## Sage Noctowl

This is turning from a "What religion are you?" to an argument about religion.

I think Kammington is wondering how a giant singularity of matter occurred in one place and spontaneously burst, creating time and space as well as a spread of energy.

Also, religion is just an alternate belief than some beliefs of science.  The universe is not completely perfect, it can't be described by a set of beliefs, or scientific laws, or anything.  Each is just an attempt at explaining it.

In many instances, science and religion can coincide with each other.  Science deals with the tangible, while religion deals with the intangible.  Therefore, why can't they coexist with each other?
(I probably contradicted myself a couple of times there.)

To expand on my beliefs more, I'm an 'old-earth' 'theistic evolutionist' scientific protestant Christian (I think that's it)


----------



## Ryan the Terrible

I'm a strong atheist and always will be. But lately my thoughtful side has been showing up again, and I've come to some conclusions. If there is a conscious force that created the universe:

-It changed a lot of natural laws after it created the universe.
-There are no religions based on it.
-It is imperfect.
-It doesn't want us to believe in it, because we will start asking for things to be changed if we do.
-If it allows good people to live after their death, we won't be tested based on whether we believed in it. Our results will be based on how well we used what it gave us. (For example, NOT completely throwing away our logic to blindly believe in the impossible.) Also, it would probably just cut off the lives of those who it doesn't think deserve salvation, rather than torture them for eternity.

I felt sort of weird calling this "it", but for obvious reasons a deity would definitely be genderless.

This all said, I still highly doubt that a deity exists, and will remain an atheist until I see solid proof of otherwise.


----------



## Tarvos

Sage Noctowl said:


> Also, religion is just an alternate belief than some beliefs of science.  The universe is not completely perfect, it can't be described by a set of beliefs, or scientific laws, or anything.  Each is just an attempt at explaining it.


science is not a belief scientific laws are pretty much set in stone because there is solid evidence to _back it up_



> In many instances, science and religion can coincide with each other.  Science deals with the tangible, while religion deals with the intangible.  Therefore, why can't they coexist with each other?
> (I probably contradicted myself a couple of times there.)


religion steps on science's turf continually. NOMA is dumb


----------



## Sage Noctowl

Watershed said:


> science is not a belief scientific laws are pretty much set in stone because there is solid evidence to _back it up_
> 
> 
> 
> religion steps on science's turf continually. NOMA is dumb


Scientific _Laws_ are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion.  I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
Some scientific theories are just that.  _Theories._  Religion can also be considered a theory.  Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true.  Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.


----------



## departuresong

Sage Noctowl said:


> Some scientific theories are just that.  _Theories._  Religion can also be considered a theory.


A scientific theory is based on logic and can be tested. To my understanding (which is admittedly very little), it also changes based on new data and evidence.


----------



## Ruby

Obviously it _is_ true that there are some scientific ideas which have been suggested but not proved.  They are probably not called "theories" except in day-to-day language.


----------



## Ryan the Terrible

Sage Noctowl said:


> Scientific _Laws_ are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion.  I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
> Some scientific theories are just that.  _Theories._  Religion can also be considered a theory.  Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true.  Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.


That's true in a way, but there are some things, like evolution, that are only still considered theories because of religion. The pieces of the puzzle fit together flawlessly, but so many people would go crazy if it was presented as a fact in textbooks, because it goes against God. It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk, people don't rise from the dead, and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

Hematophyte said:


> That's true in a way, but there are some things, like evolution, that are only still considered theories because of religion. The pieces of the puzzle fit together flawlessly, but so many people would go crazy if it was presented as a fact in textbooks, because it goes against God.


How are you going to PROVE that animals change through time?  It's easy to infer from all of the obvious information that we have, but we can't just jump in a time machine and go, hey, look, a partially evolved creature.  Fossils may be able to say some things, but we can't know for certain.  For all you know, some crazy reptilian intelligence decided to mix the genes of feathers with a flying reptile, a crazed man decided to take a chiesel to old rock and put some convincing carbon ratio samples, or something of that nature.



> It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk,


According to the religious text of Christianity and Judaism, there are a couple possibilities.  The curse of the snake (the craftiest animal) may have eliminated his speech, or more likely, the curse of men on the world left them without interaction with animals.  Lastly, the tower of Babel could have taken away from this, but it is doubted by me.



> people don't rise from the dead,


According to the Christian bible, JESUS IS GOD, why wouldn't he be able to rise from the dead?  If an almighty being created the universe, wouldn't you think that a child of his would be able to come back from the place where his father resides?



> and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.


'Days' are units of time.  Time is not an ever-flowing river.  God's perspective of 'day' would no doubt be different from an earthly perspective of 'day'


----------



## Flora

Hematophyte said:


> It's also been scientifically proven that snakes don't talk...and there was more than a week of Earth's existence before humans showed up.


If there's one thing that I learned from theology class, it's that the Old Testament is generally supposed to be taken figuratively. The first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) weren't even written until the Babylonian exile, and their main purpose was (and still is) to communicate religious truths, not historical facts.



> How are you going to PROVE that animals change through time?  It's easy  to infer from all of the obvious information that we have, but we can't  just jump in a time machine and go, hey, look, a partially evolved  creature.  Fossils may be able to say some things, but we can't know for  certain.  For all you know, some crazy reptilian intelligence decided  to mix the genes of feathers with a flying reptile, a crazed man decided  to take a chiesel to old rock and put some convincing carbon ratio  samples, or something of that nature.


(You're late to the party, the pope said he agrees with evolutionism :D)

Firstly, yes, evolution is a theory, but technically creationism is too.  They can coexist, you know; who says God didn't create the basic forms of life and let them evolve on their own?

Secondly, while it's true that we can't know for sure, scientific evidence is highly supportive of evolution.

Thirdly, those last two examples aren't fairly convincing (and I'm 99% sure that chiseling a rock _doesn't_ change carbon ratios).

That aside, I can't remember if I posted here before, but I'm some weird nondenominational Christian, I guess... Born Catholic but their position on certain things is just ridiculous.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

That's what I've been saying.  And I said that the crazy guy put carbon in with different ratios, not chiseled to change them.


----------



## 1. Luftballon

gravity is just a theory.


----------



## Flora

Sage Noctowl said:


> That's what I've been saying.  And I said that the crazy guy put carbon in with different ratios, not chiseled to change them.


Oh, okay.  From the sound of it, it seemed like you were arguing against evolutionism because of creationism.

(I don't think it works that way either, though.)


----------



## Sage Noctowl

No, I was arguing that science had theories of the same capabilities as religion, and that nothing is certain.  However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

I was raised Catholic, I am now an "open-minded" Christian. I believe in a mix of things.

Don't take the old testament literally. You will become very confused if you do so.


----------



## opaltiger

ARGHHHHH

Let me say this for the one millionth damn time: THEORIES EXPLAIN FACTS. Theories are NOT a level lower in the hierarchy of certainty. They are explanations of observations.

Evolution is both a theory and fact. It is a fact that organisms have changed over time: this is the fact of evolution. It is backed up by evidence from countless fields. Evolution is also a theory - the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution by reference to mechanisms like natural selection.

Theories are the highest level of scientific explanation. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Cell theory. Germ theory. No one would ever call these "just a theory", and evolution has more evidence going for it than most of those.



> Firstly, yes, evolution is a theory, but technically creationism is too. They can coexist, you know; who says God didn't create the basic forms of life and let them evolve on their own?


No, no it is not. Perhaps it is a theory in the colloquial sense, but then evolution isn't. If you're speaking of scientific theories, creationism doesn't come close. The only way you can call both creationism and evolution theories is if you deliberately apply different definitions of the word. Also, biblical creationism quite clearly states that all creatures were created as they are, which obviously contradicts the facts.



> However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')


No it isn't.


----------



## xkze

thank you for that, opal. that is the most infuriating thing.


----------



## Tarvos

> Scientific Laws are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion. I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.


no scientific laws are never set in stone they are frequently even inaccurate models, they are theories - they change - BUT they explain observations adequately which is why we use them

religion does no such thing



> Some scientific theories are just that. Theories. Religion can also be considered a theory. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true. Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.


even though science says god could exist, doesn't mean he does either

what bollocks reasoning seriously


----------



## Minish

Sage Noctowl said:


> No, I was arguing that science had theories of the same capabilities as religion, and that nothing is certain.  However, gravity is a scientific law (hence the 'law of gravitivity')


You can't call evolution "just a theory" and then go on to say that gravity is an actual scientific law. Make up your mind.


----------



## Phantom

Atheist here. Which is weird. I went to private Catholic schools from K-12 and my parents aren't quite happy with the choice.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

Sage Noctowl said:


> Scientific _Laws_ are set in stone, but none of those contradict religion.  I was saying that these laws don't and can't describe perfectly every aspect of the universe.
> Some scientific theories are just that.  _Theories._  Religion can also be considered a theory.  Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it can't be true.  Even though science says God doesn't have to exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.


You're confusing the terms _hypothesis_ and _theory_.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon that has not been proven by experimentation or observation.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts, or in layman's terms, it's a hypothesis that has been proven by experimentation and observation.

So no, creationism is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, about as scientifically valid as me hypothesising that the Big Bang was caused by Matthew Gray Gubler's decision to become one of the most memorable actors in the 21st century crime show genre.

Also, just to pick a few more nits, there's no "law of gravity", there's "Newton's law of universal gravitation" which has itself been succeeded by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

As for how it can be proven, try Googling Richard Lenski.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

All I'm trying to say is that neo-creationism isn't necessarily flawless, just as archae-creationism isn't flawless.  Religion, however, asks for faith, whilst science asks for proof.


----------



## Zuu

stepping back a page, the big bang is probably the most accurate model for the beginning of the universe that we have today. I don't think anyone has said that it is flawless. I'm sort of at the same point, however, so I suppose I'm missing something - we don't have an explanation for how it actually occurred, right?

not that it means it wasn't natural, because it most likely was natural, but if I recall correctly the big bang theory was actually thought up by a Catholic scientist or ... something. I'm not very solid with science history.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

According to the dubious sources of Wikipedia, he was a catholic priest.


----------



## Saith

Just gonna explain why I believe in a deity/ies.

I believe in the Big Bang. I'm certain that it happened. It's either that, or something I'm not smart enough to understand, and I hate it when people use the 'it'sah beyondah the huuuumanah intelllllligenceah' argument, so I'm sticking with the Big Bang.

Anyway, the Big Bang must have been caused by something, it cannot have caused itself. Everything needs a cause, so there must be something that caused but wasn't caused, otherwise there'll be an infinite chain of effects with no cause. That's basically like a rope, the beginning of which you can't see. You know it's hanging down, but it goes so far up that you can't see where it's hooked onto. You just know it's hooked onto something, otherwise it wouldn't be hanging.

So the first cause, the 'unmoved mover', must have caused the Big Bang. Or caused the thing that caused the Big Bang, or as far back as you like.

As to how something could have not been caused, it would be a necessary being. As in, it caused itself, and is therefore infinite.

I don't think the Universe is infinitely old, as I believe in the Big Bang, and so I believe the Universe had a beginning.

It must have been a personal god, as if the Big Bang started due to an impersonal event, such as a force, the univrse would be infinite due to the forces being infinite.

Anyway, wooooooooooords, wall of text, whatever. Sorry about that, but the religion thread in the debating place is dead, and I don't like to necro, sooo~~~


----------



## Autumn

if everything needs a cause, yet you admit to a first cause causing all the other causes, why can't the Big Bang be the first cause?


----------



## opaltiger

Also: time began with the Big Bang. Saying "before the Big Bang" is meaningless. So the concept of a necessary cause for the Big Bang is dubious at best.

I don't understand why the universe can't be infinite and everlasting if a deity can. Surely that makes more sense?


----------



## Sage Noctowl

A random singularity of matter spontaneously exploding before time to create time and space makes just about as much sense to me as the existence of a deity.


----------



## opaltiger

Sage Noctowl said:


> A random singularity of matter spontaneously exploding before time to create time and space makes just about as much sense to me as the existence of a deity.


Anything can be made to sound ridiculous if you phrase it in a ridiculous way, but you're being intellectually dishonest in doing so. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, no. We don't know if it had a cause. But we do know that it happened, which is more than I can say for the existence of a deity.

Unless you're suggesting that it makes as much sense as a deity causing said explosion, in which case I must disagree. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor; proposing a deity as the cause of the Big Bang is entirely superfluous.


----------



## Ryan the Terrible

Sage Noctowl said:


> A random singularity of matter spontaneously exploding before time to create time and space makes just about as much sense to me as the existence of a deity.


Not really, since that seems vaguely possible at the very least. Someone who says "thou shalt not kill" and that we should forgive, and then prescribes we put everyone to death who doesn't believe in him does not.

I don't really know if I think the Big Bang could have happened. I don't have any beliefs as to how the universe started, and I'm not really interesting in it. I just know that the universe is here and I will live in it until my death.


----------



## departuresong

Hematophyte said:


> I don't really know if I think the Big Bang could have happened.


It did, whether you "believe" it or not.


----------



## Tarvos

Sage Noctowl said:


> A random singularity of matter spontaneously exploding before time to create time and space makes just about as much sense to me as the existence of a deity.


Quite the contrary. The Big Bang is a matter of physics - something you could perfectly find a way to model mathematically somehow. By what we know about the Big Bang, having an expanding universe created from an infinite singularity of matter would be sensible considering at those circumstances every piece of mass would be repelled from another piece of mass. It makes perfect physical sense to have a Big Bang. And if we can't model it now we could model it in the future, becausse physics almost conclusively tells us that that is what happened (pending further inquiry).

A deity doesn't have a physical reason to exist whatsoever.


----------



## Harlequin

I particularly love how people are saying "religon asks for faith and science asks for proof" as if that means anything. That religion asks solely for faith is _the entire point_. That is why it cannot be regarded as a source of knowledge and information, and why science is so much more able to explain things about the universe and the natural world. Evolution is fact. Evolution by natural selection is (scientific) theory. Creationism is at best a hypothesis. 

Also, NOMA is ridiculous. 

Also, please let's apply Occam's Razor. It makes everything significantly less complicated.


----------



## Saith

From what I know of the Big Bang (which I guess isn't that much) is that it was an incredibly dense area inside nothing that exploded to create the universe.
I'm not a physicist, so I can't dispute that, so I have to take it as fact, as I have no information otherwise. And I'm fine with that.
Thing is, though, how did the dense thing explode? If it was gonna explode on its own, it would have done it immediately meaning that the universe would be infinite.
If the universe was infinite, the Big Bang couldn't have happened as that would mean the universe had a beginning, meaning it's not infinite. That's the easiest way to explain?
Infinity, apparantly, is impossible. If you add, subtract, multiply etc to infinity it would still be infinity.
Meaning that if the universe was infinite, there would have been an infinite number of sunsets, an infinite number of wars and an infinite number of decades. There'd be an infinite number of books, and even if you burnt one there would still be an infinite number.
That's obviously impossible, and so the universe can't be infinite.

I hate Occhams Razor, mind. Mainly because, for example, if a door opens on its own, the simplest reason would be that it was 'magic', the actual answer would be that the energy in the wind is applied as a force into the door causing it to react by opening.
Saying that the Big Bang 'just happened' is the same as saying that nine months after sex, a baby just happens.
There is no simple answer for the cause of the Big Bang, but the cause would need to be more powerful than the universe, or powerful enough to cause an explosion of that magnitude (and therefore omnipotent to beings inside of the universe), outside of the universe (and therefore beyond time), it must have a mind (because I've already explained why I don't think it's a force), and therefore we might as well call it a deity.

I don't have a religion in particular, so I'm not saying it has an active interest, or even is aware of us, but I think a deity must exist.

Maybe someone should make a new thread in the debating place, or we should stop debating?


----------



## 1. Luftballon

Saith said:


> I hate Occhams Razor, mind. Mainly because, for example, if a door opens on its own, the simplest reason would be that it was 'magic', the actual answer would be that the energy in the wind is applied as a force into the door causing it to react by opening.


'magic' is not and explanation. and then you'd have to explain where the magic came from. occam's razor is recursive.


----------



## opaltiger

> Thing is, though, how did the dense thing explode? If it was gonna explode on its own, it would have done it immediately meaning that the universe would be infinite.


You're still thinking in terms of time. The word "immediately" is meaningless if there was no time before the Big Bang.



> If the universe was infinite, the Big Bang couldn't have happened as that would mean the universe had a beginning, meaning it's not infinite.


The universe existed before the Big Bang. It was simply compressed into a tiny space.

Listen: we have no clue what happened before the Big Bang. That doesn't in any way suggest that a deity is the only logical answer. Your arguments are all based on the supposition that before the Big Bang is something we can comprehend. We can't. The laws of physics began with the Big Bang! You can't talk about something like that meaningfully.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

opaltiger said:


> You're still thinking in terms of time. The word "immediately" is meaningless if there was no time before the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe existed before the Big Bang. It was simply compressed into a tiny space.
> 
> Listen: we have no clue what happened before the Big Bang. That doesn't in any way suggest that a deity is the only logical answer. Your arguments are all based on the supposition that before the Big Bang is something we can comprehend. We can't. The laws of physics began with the Big Bang! You can't talk about something like that meaningfully.


Let me get this straight.
You just said that there was no time before the big bang, but you said the universe existed before the Big Bang, which would make no sense if nothing _could_ be before the big bang because *before* represents an amount of time.  And if time existed at the beginning of the Big Bang, and the laws of physics were created by the explosion at the beginning of time, there was never a time when the laws of physics existed.  So nothing was 'before' the big bang, you can only talk about what existed the first zetaseconds of the big bang.  But if the explosion of the big bang created the laws of physics, then we don't need to explain the big bang because it created physics.

Badly worded rebuttal is badly worded

Also, I think a move topic would be better than the creation of a new topic, because we've already got something going here, and if we just created a new topic, argument may still continue in this one.


----------



## Autumn

Sage Noctowl said:


> You just said that there was no time before the big bang, but you said the universe existed before the Big Bang, which would make no sense if nothing _could_ be before the big bang because *before* represents an amount of time.


I assume the use of "before" was for lack of a non-time-related word.


----------



## opaltiger

Sage Noctowl said:


> Let me get this straight.
> You just said that there was no time before the big bang, but you said the universe existed before the Big Bang, which would make no sense if nothing _could_ be before the big bang because *before* represents an amount of time.  And if time existed at the beginning of the Big Bang, and the laws of physics were created by the explosion at the beginning of time, there was never a time when the laws of physics existed.  So nothing was 'before' the big bang, you can only talk about what existed the first zetaseconds of the big bang.  But if the explosion of the big bang created the laws of physics, then we don't need to explain the big bang because it created physics.
> 
> Badly worded rebuttal is badly worded
> 
> Also, I think a move topic would be better than the creation of a new topic, because we've already got something going here, and if we just created a new topic, argument may still continue in this one.


I said time as we know it. It's possible to say something existed before the Big Bang in the sense that the Big Bang did not cause the universe to spring into existence. Perhaps time existed in some way - perhaps the laws of physics did, too. My point is that it is utterly meaningless for us to discuss what caused the Big Bang because whatever preceded the Big Bang simply doesn't fit into any framework we currently have.

What I'd like you to explain is how any of this makes a deity necessary. Yes, the Big Bang is an unexplainable event the circumstances of which we know very little about. But none of that requires a deity. This is the same old god of the gaps argument that's been abused since religion first popped up: we don't understand something, therefore it must be the work of a deity. I'd have hoped we could leave that sort of thinking behind.


----------



## Saith

I say deity, but I don't necessarilly mean an 'Almighty God'.
I mean that what caused the Big Bang was sentient and powerful enough to do it.
That, to me, is a deity, I guess.

Also, if there was no time, wouldn't the first thing that happened be immediate or something? As I said, I'm no good with physics, so yeah.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

Saith said:


> I say deity, but I don't necessarilly mean an 'Almighty God'.
> I mean that what caused the Big Bang was sentient and powerful enough to do it.
> That, to me, is a deity, I guess.
> 
> Also, if there was no time, wouldn't the first thing that happened be immediate or something? As I said, I'm no good with physics, so yeah.


Same thing. Whether it's Almighty God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes no difference whatsoever. Let me try to rephrase opal's question: why is the existence of a sentient and powerful being necessary to explain the Big Bang/whatever came "before" it? 

I don't quite understand your second question... Since there is no time, there's no such thing as "immediate", since that portrays a sense of time.


----------



## Lucas₇₅₅

Christian, raised Christian.

That makes me original here, right?


----------



## Zuu

I wouldn't call it "originality".


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

Nah, you're the thirteenth apostle in our poll.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

opaltiger said:


> I said time as we know it. It's possible to say something existed before the Big Bang in the sense that the Big Bang did not cause the universe to spring into existence. Perhaps time existed in some way - perhaps the laws of physics did, too. My point is that it is utterly meaningless for us to discuss what caused the Big Bang because whatever preceded the Big Bang simply doesn't fit into any framework we currently have.
> 
> What I'd like you to explain is how any of this makes a deity necessary. Yes, the Big Bang is an unexplainable event the circumstances of which we know very little about. But none of that requires a deity. This is the same old god of the gaps argument that's been abused since religion first popped up: we don't understand something, therefore it must be the work of a deity. I'd have hoped we could leave that sort of thinking behind.


So, are we using the Big Bang theory, or not?  If a singularity existed, it would have an infinite amount of energy/matter contained per volume, therefore having an infinite density.  It would make no sense that time could have existed before it; if time did exist, then it would have been there, not-exploding, then suddenly exploding.  With no outside forces to create a butterfly-like effect, spontaneous expulsion would not be very likely.  
Secondly, under no circumstances did I say that a deity is necessary, it is just an earlier idea that could fit the model.  For all we know, a wizard _could_ have did it.



Lucas755 said:


> Christian, raised Christian.
> 
> That makes me original here, right?


Yeah, we're kind of a minority here


----------



## opaltiger

> So, are we using the Big Bang theory, or not? If a singularity existed, it would have an infinite amount of energy/matter contained per volume, therefore having an infinite density. It would make no sense that time could have existed before it; if time did exist, then it would have been there, not-exploding, then suddenly exploding. With no outside forces to create a butterfly-like effect, spontaneous expulsion would not be very likely.


Two points:

1. The amount of matter/energy in the universe is not infinite.
2. Why would it not be very likely? I still think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. We know NOTHING about before the Big Bang. How do you know a spontaneous explosion would not be very likely? You keep trying to apply logic that works now. There is absolutely no guarantee the same or similar logic would work before the Big Bang.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

opaltiger said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. The amount of matter/energy in the universe is not infinite.
> 2. Why would it not be very likely? I still think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. We know NOTHING about before the Big Bang. How do you know a spontaneous explosion would not be very likely? You keep trying to apply logic that works now. There is absolutely no guarantee the same or similar logic would work before the Big Bang.


1.  I said contained per volume, as a singularity has negligent volume, and (finite number)/(infinitely small number) = infinity

2. So you're going to completely alter the ideas of logic with an explosion instead of using the idea of a deity?  That sounds desperate (no offense meant, of course).


----------



## opaltiger

Sage Noctowl said:


> 1.  I said contained per volume, as a singularity has negligent volume, and (finite number)/(infinitely small number) = infinity
> 
> 2. So you're going to completely alter the ideas of logic with an explosion instead of using the idea of a deity?  That sounds desperate (no offense meant, of course).


1. That's bullshit. You said infinite matter earlier, and there's no such thing as negligible volume. The number was finite, no matter how small.

2. I would love to know why the idea of a deity is any more logical. You still haven't answered that. And I repeat: _you cannot talk about what happened before the Big Bang._ Yes, I'm going to ignore logic, because it is entirely likely logic doesn't work when you talk about that. Why is this so hard to understand?

And I'd like to ask you a question. You say the deity would necessarily have to be "outside the universe". What does that mean? How does that function? And if you say that's something we can't answer or comprehend, that's exactly the point I've been making about the cause of the Big Bang. A deity is entirely superfluous; all it does is push the matter back a step.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

opaltiger said:


> 1. That's bullshit. You said infinite matter earlier, and there's no such thing as negligible volume. The number was finite, no matter how small.
> 
> 2. I would love to know why the idea of a deity is any more logical. You still haven't answered that. And I repeat: _you cannot talk about what happened before the Big Bang._ Yes, I'm going to ignore logic, because it is entirely likely logic doesn't work when you talk about that. Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> And I'd like to ask you a question. You say the deity would necessarily have to be "outside the universe". What does that mean? How does that function? And if you say that's something we can't answer or comprehend, that's exactly the point I've been making about the cause of the Big Bang. A deity is entirely superfluous; all it does is push the matter back a step.


1. 





Sage Noctowl said:


> an infinite amount of energy/matter contained *per volume*


If time nor space exist, then there is no space, and therefore no volume.

2. It's hard to understand because you're trying to use logic to dismiss logic.
When did I ever say the deity would be outside of the universe?
Although, that is what I believe, but I never said that.
Anyways, God may be in a different section of a multiverse, of which a connection would be obtained by passing linearly through a different dimension.  Yes, I am aware that this idea is even more insane than the last one.  However, it seems that this may not be a manner of believability.


----------



## opaltiger

Sage Noctowl said:


> 1.
> If time nor space exist, then there is no space, and therefore no volume.


But... space DID exist. It was merely very small.



> 2. It's hard to understand because you're trying to use logic to dismiss logic.


I am using logic to dismiss logic _before the Big Bang._



> When did I ever say the deity would be outside of the universe?
> Although, that is what I believe, but I never said that.


Sorry, that was Saith.



> Anyways, God may be in a different section of a multiverse, of which a connection would be obtained by passing linearly through a different dimension.  Yes, I am aware that this idea is even more insane than the last one.  However, it seems that this may not be a manner of believability.


Oh, come on. Now you're just reaching. You seriously find this easier to accept than the idea - for example - that the Big Bang had no cause?


----------



## Sage Noctowl

I didn't say it was _easier_ to accept, but of an equal nature.
Isn't _singularity_ used to mean a single no-dimensional point?


----------



## Zuu

I always thought it referred to a gravitational singularity...?


----------



## opaltiger

Sage Noctowl said:


> I didn't say it was _easier_ to accept, but of an equal nature.


You propose a multiverse, I propose a single universe. Not quite?



> Isn't _singularity_ used to mean a single no-dimensional point?


It is a singularity in the sense that, extrapolating back far enough, the density and temperature of the universe are both infinite. That doesn't mean they were literally infinite, however. We have no idea what actually happened at that singularity, because that's where general relativity (which is much used in explaining the early progression of the Big Bang) breaks down. Presumably space did exist, however, because otherwise there'd be no way for matter to exist. Or perhaps everything just popped into existence at that point.


----------



## Phantom

I had a taught that a deity was a unnescessary solutionto a seemingly nescessary question. Man could not find a proper solution to the creation of the universe, so it became decided (at least in the God of Abraham) that it must be in the hands of a god that we have no way of fully understanding, a god we deem nescessary to be the solution when there is one. 

I can say in my personal opinion that know one knows for sure if the universe was created, or an accident. 

Sadly though I think Big Bang theorists do the same thing that religion does, they make a solution that is not all together provable. Which is why I think that it becomes such a fuss. They both want to see who's unproved solution is better. The only thing the Big Bang has is that it is considered a theory rather than a truth. This is just my opinion on the topic. 

The difference between it being a SOLUTION and not an ANSWER. A solution is an explaination, and answer is the truth.



I think that made more sense in my brain.


----------



## Minish

tbh I don't believe that if there are deities, they had anything to do with the Big Bang. My idea of deities didn't and couldn't exist before humans existed, and perhaps not even until humans thought them up. They're only personifications of divinity, made into a more human-like form so we can relate to it.

I know this isn't an idea that works for everyone. But I do believe there is some underlying current, some _thing_, that runs alongside the world that we just can't understand. Gods are only our way of trying to make it easier to understand (by the way, I'm talking about traditional gods or spirits, like gods of justice, gods of fertility, etc., rather than the ones of odd monotheistic religions that kind of make no actual sense at all)

The whole idea of an omnipotent god that created everything is just rather bizarre to me. In the end even the deities I believe in are still just human creations made to relate to the force of nature, or the universe, or whatever -- there's a reason humanity keeps going back to it. Maybe not even nature, but just concepts, things science tends to not explain; love, goodness, evilness etc.

Yeah, that's all pretty rambly stuff. I'm sure I don't have the actual answer.

By the way, I know next to nothing about awesome complicated sciencey stuff but as far as I can tell, the Big Bang is what happened.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

How would humans have created actual deities instead of deities of their mind?


----------



## 1. Luftballon

by defining actual deities as deities of their own mind.


----------



## Zuu

Sage Noctowl said:


> How would humans have created actual deities instead of deities of their mind?


first, we need to define "deity". 

beyond that, they exist in the mind - and that is more than enough for many people. concepts have power.


----------



## Sage Noctowl

Dezzuu said:


> first, we need to define "deity".
> 
> beyond that, they exist in the mind - and that is more than enough for many people. concepts have power.


So the big bang never existed before people thought it up?


----------



## Minish

Sage Noctowl said:


> So the big bang never existed before people thought it up?


No, the Big Bang _actually happened_.


----------



## Zuu

Sage Noctowl said:


> So the big bang never existed before people thought it up?


... how did you even deduce that from my post? you seem to be grasping at straws.


----------



## ZimD

Sage Noctowl said:


> So the big bang never existed before people thought it up?


lolwut


----------



## opaltiger

Charizard2K said:


> Sadly though I think Big Bang theorists do the same thing that religion does, they make a solution that is not all together provable. Which is why I think that it becomes such a fuss. They both want to see who's unproved solution is better. The only thing the Big Bang has is that it is considered a theory rather than a truth. This is just my opinion on the topic.


Do I have to rant _again?_ Of course the Big Bang isn't a truth. It is a model - not a theory - that attempts to explain the formation of the universe as we know it. It is incomplete. That is hardly surprising. But that doesn't mean it is unproven. For example, the COBE mission which verified to an amazingly accurate degree predictions made on the basis of the Big Bang model.



> The difference between it being a SOLUTION and not an ANSWER. A solution is an explaination, and answer is the truth.


Nothing can ever provide the truth. Science gives explanations, with the caveat that we cannot ever be 100% sure that they are correct. I think an inability to accept the fact that nothing is really certain is the reason many people can't seem to let go of religious explanations.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

Charizard2K said:


> The difference between it being a SOLUTION and not an ANSWER. A solution is an explaination, and answer is the truth.


Science is the quest for knowledge, not truth. The only assumption that science operates on is that the world exists, and from that assumption, it attempts to assimilate knowledge from which explanations for phenomena can be made. Given that we cannot definitively prove that anything beyond our mind exists, any quest for truth is doomed to fail. However, scientists don't look for the truth, they look at the knowledge that has been assimilated, and from this knowledge, they hypothesise about explanations for phenomena. Then they rigorously test these hypotheses and the hypotheses that are proven true to an agreed value of truth in an inherently unprovable reality are called theories, which is to say that after observation and experimentation, it has been agreed that the theory is an accurate explanation of a phenomenon.

Hence, Big Bang theory.



Sage Noctowl said:


> So the big bang never existed before people thought it up?


No, the Big Bang happened, this theory has been proven through experimentation and observation. However, there has never been any evidence for a deity, and therefore it will never be possible to reasonably believe any hypothesis which includes a deity in its framework.


----------



## Dannichu

The Big Bang happened _twice_.

Ask The Doctor.


----------



## ...

Christian, born and raised that way. I won't elaborate any further because even I can't adequately describe the faith, seeing as each division believes in something a little different.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

You can't be born a religion :(


----------



## Tarvos

technically incorrect as Judaism is transmitted by birth -- however I think that's also Jewish ethnicity rather than religion


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

Judaism is transmitted through the mother, but I'm not sure whether it's the religion also or just the ethnicity. Sarkozy is Jewish, for instance, even though he's Catholic. It's pretty complicated.


----------



## shy ♡

It's meant to be the religion as well, though it is complicated since many Jews aren't orthodox. Judaism is weird.

Also when you say it's transmitted through the mother that sounds like a disease heh.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

*insert obnoxious religion = disease joke*


----------



## Tarvos

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> Judaism is transmitted through the mother, but I'm not sure whether it's the religion also or just the ethnicity. Sarkozy is Jewish, for instance, even though he's Catholic. It's pretty complicated.


I don't think you can formally renounce Judaism, you can just not practice it. I'll ask my girlfriend considering she's Jewish but doesn't believe in God afaik


----------



## agcurbáistí

Hinduism and Sikhism need some love, especially considering they're much cooler and groovier than the Abrahamic religions. Also, I don't know how to stop being Catholic. Is there a website or something where you can quit? That would be handy.


----------



## Tailsy

Er. You can write a nice letter to the priest of your church and ask him.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

agcurbáistí said:


> Hinduism and Sikhism need some love, especially considering they're much cooler and groovier than the Abrahamic religions. Also, I don't know how to stop being Catholic. Is there a website or something where you can quit? That would be handy.


I hear there's a communion wafer patch that you can wear to wean yourself from Catholicism.


----------



## wyoming789

Religion scares me.  It sounds funny, I know, but it makes me depressed thinking about it.  (Although a lot of things do, but still..)  Really, I tried being Atheist because my friend is, but it just made it worse.  I thought about maybe looking into maybe Buddhism or Islam, but I never got into it.  Religion makes me feel wierd.  I guess I count as a Christian, but I'm not to prominant.


----------



## opaltiger

Jessie said:


> Er. You can write a nice letter to the priest of your church and ask him.


Good luck with that.

How to stop being Catholic: stop being Catholic.


----------



## Dannichu

Blastoise's communion wafer patch suggestion was funny, but in seriousness, "giving up" religion is a very difficult process for a lot of people; if you've been raised with a religion since birth, not only is rejecting everyting you've been taught a sometimes terrifying prospect, leaving the church also means leaving behind the church community, which is a huge source of social support for a lot of people, and, for people from more devout branches of religion (Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses spring to mind from Christianity, but the case is the same for some Catholic families), leaving the church means leaving (or being rejected by) your whole family.
"Stopping being [religion]" is an immensely difficult, long, and lonely process for a lot of people and not as simple as you guys are making it sound.


----------



## shy ♡

Dannichu said:


> Blastoise's communion wafer patch suggestion was funny, but in seriousness, "giving up" religion is a very difficult process for a lot of people; if you've been raised with a religion since birth, not only is rejecting everyting you've been taught a sometimes terrifying prospect, leaving the church also means leaving behind the church community, which is a huge source of social support for a lot of people, and, for people from more devout branches of religion (Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses spring to mind from Christianity, but the case is the same for some Catholic families), leaving the church means leaving (or being rejected by) your whole family.
> "Stopping being [religion]" is an immensely difficult, long, and lonely process for a lot of people and not as simple as you guys are making it sound.


I was 'raised a religion' and left it. At a rather young age, so it wasn't that big a deal; it was harder on my parents.


----------



## spaekle

Leaving christianity wasn't that big of a deal for me because my parents never went to church. Then again, I don't think they know I'm an atheist yet.

lol, I remember this one time years ago when I was looking up demonology stuff because I was bored (and find it sort of interesting despite not believing in it). My parents found a bunch of websites about demons in my web history and gave me this huge lecture about how if I'm going to be conjuring otherworldly beings they should be ones on the side of light and love and stuff. hahahahaha. 

...Plus my grandma is of  the "omg harry potter was written by atheists who want to turn you to satan!" sort. Oh _boy_ is telling my family going to be fun.


----------



## Minish

Dannichu said:


> Blastoise's communion wafer patch suggestion was funny, but in seriousness, "giving up" religion is a very difficult process for a lot of people; if you've been raised with a religion since birth, not only is rejecting everyting you've been taught a sometimes terrifying prospect, leaving the church also means leaving behind the church community, which is a huge source of social support for a lot of people, and, for people from more devout branches of religion (Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses spring to mind from Christianity, but the case is the same for some Catholic families), leaving the church means leaving (or being rejected by) your whole family.
> "Stopping being [religion]" is an immensely difficult, long, and lonely process for a lot of people and not as simple as you guys are making it sound.


This. If you found it easy and simple, count yourself as lucky because you really are a rarity.

Apart from knowing a few people personally who came from really devout Irish Catholic families, I've experienced this a bit but in a bit of an ironic way: I was raised by a very, very non-religious family. Transitioning to (neo)paganism has been a bit difficult for me because not only do they feel anything towards religion other than "KILL IT WITH FIRE" but in the few times I've mentioned it I've pretty much been fully scorned. Thankfully my immediate family aren't as militantly atheist as the rest of the family, but I still feel like I have to very much keep it all to myself.

So yeah. Although I'm very much aware that it's much harder for one of my friends - one of the ones from an Irish Catholic family that I mentioned earlier, _and_ she's a pagan. Ouch.


----------



## Tarvos

opaltiger said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> How to stop being Catholic: stop being Catholic.


my grandmother revoked her subscription to the catholic church actually


----------



## Loffyglu

Leaving a religion is a pretty tough thing, I know; my family is Catholic, and though my immediate family isn't very devout (in fact, I _think_ my mom's agnostic at this point), I did go to a Christian school as early as preschool up until the beginning of first grade; and then when we moved and I went to public school, my parents made my sister and I go to religion classes every Wednesday night at the local Catholic school until I was about... 10? 11? They weren't too happy when I started breaking away and dabbling in other religions when I was 11, and for a while I did slip back into a more passive Christianity; I'd say in total it took me about 4 years to finally find a religion I felt fit me (Wicca), and though my extended family still doesn't know about this for the most part, my parents have grown to become supportive of me in this aspect, even if they don't agree with me, which is good. :)

Anyway, my point! It can be really hard to break away from religion, yeah; in fact, even though I don't hold Catholic beliefs at all, I still find a slightly nostalgic appeal to it, and I own and wear several cross necklaces still (though that's more because I think they're pretty, ahaha...) Though I guess it's different for everyone, depending on how you were raised? It wasn't terribly painful for me, except when I initially started questioning things, but I've heard some stories about how hard or even traumatic it can be for those raised in more devout families.


----------



## Tarvos

it is very traumatic for those people, yes, and the catholic church especially hates it.

my parents are still catholics formally too, they cant be bothered to do it since its a hassle and my parents just effectively do not care


----------



## Superbird

Watershed said:


> I don't think you can formally renounce Judaism, you can just not practice it. I'll ask my girlfriend considering she's Jewish but doesn't believe in God afaik


My dad is of Jewish ethnicity; he is atheist. Watershed, you're right about the not practicing part. According to my father if you don't practice a religion then you can call yourself that religion in ethnicity only. I think.


----------



## Tarvos

I don't think any religion, except Judaism, is ethnic or has any ethnic component to it. Jews are also historically people with a culture.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

You can be ethnically Jewish but you can be culturally Christian, Muslim, etc. what have you. Richard Dawkinds, for example, calls himself culturally Christian.


----------



## Tarvos

Culturally is not ethnically. Culture means being raised, ethnic is by means of birth.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

I know, I was expanding on your above statement to show that superbird's dad had the right basic idea but the wrong terminology.


----------



## Tailsy

Cirrus said:


> This. If you found it easy and simple, count yourself as lucky because you really are a rarity.


I don't particularly find having the Catholic doctrine forced on me as a child to be 'lucky'. I'm stuck with that for my entire life. In fact, I'm stuck with that because of my *surname*. Jardine = French = Catholic. I'm stuck with that because of the schools I attended. I'm never going to be able to pretend I was never Catholic.

I'm from an Irish Catholic family. When I have children and choose not to baptise them, I'm going to have to deal with the 'why?' 'but they're going to be raised with a Catholic family, right?' 'it's what happened to you' fallout. In fact, when I get _married_ and choose not to have a church ceremony, it's going to be a huge pain in the ass. People don't tend to like the 'actually, I'm going to let my child choose their religion (or lack of) for themselves' explanation, for some reason.

My parents are acceptive of my atheism; the rest of my family? Not so much. It's easy for me right now because all I have to worry about is going to church (I don't, and my parents don't because they're lazy. End). Not really later.


----------



## Minish

Jessie said:


> I don't particularly find having the Catholic doctrine forced on me as a child to be 'lucky'.


No, no, I'm talking about the people who got out easy. Most people raised in a, say, Catholic family are like you - unfortunately stuck with it for the rest of their life. I'm talking about people who _aren't_ stuck with it. You know, the people earlier who were saying it was easy to get out?

I have a few friends from Irish Catholic backgrounds, and just... yyyeah. Doesn't sound nice. :C


----------



## Tailsy

Cirrus said:


> No, no, I'm talking about the people who got out easy. Most people raised in a, say, Catholic family are like you - unfortunately stuck with it for the rest of their life. I'm talking about people who _aren't_ stuck with it. You know, the people earlier who were saying it was easy to get out?
> 
> I have a few friends from Irish Catholic backgrounds, and just... yyyeah. Doesn't sound nice. :C


Well, under all technicalities it _is_ 'easy' to get out: you can revoke your faith by writing to your parish priest (the one who did all of your sacraments at least) and be like 'bro take me off your list' and he will do it. Except if you call him bro maybe B| 

It's not the religion itself that makes it difficult to change; it's the way you were brought up. It's lame!

It also reminds me of one of my boyfriend's family members, who nobody talks to any more because he took his wife's surname when they got married.
I'm not kidding. Jordan was like 'yeah uh I've never met him :B' D:


----------



## Dannichu

Jessie said:


> Well, under all technicalities it _is_ 'easy' to get out: you can revoke your faith by writing to your parish priest (the one who did all of your sacraments at least) and be like 'bro take me off your list' and he will do it. Except if you call him bro maybe B|


Yeah, but that's like saying "It's easy to kill yourself, you just pull the trigger!" - sure, it's only one simple action that means you revoke your faith, but _actually doing it_ is very, very hard for most people.

Side-story: my grandmother was from an Irish Catholic family and was one of three (that lived into adulthood) - her brother was a priest and her sister was a nun. I win your Irish Catholic Awards.


----------



## Tailsy

Dannichu said:


> Yeah, but that's like saying "It's easy to kill yourself, you just pull the trigger!" - sure, it's only one simple action that means you revoke your faith, but _actually doing it_ is very, very hard for most people.
> 
> Side-story: my grandmother was from an Irish Catholic family and was one of three (that lived into adulthood) - her brother was a priest and her sister was a nun. I win your Irish Catholic Awards.


Well duh, that's what I just said.

YEAH, WELL, my gran was one of 13 (I think 7 lived until adulthood but don't quote me on that) and my mum was one of six >:( CATHOLIC BREEDING POLICY WIN.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

My grandfather is from a family of ten, my mother is from a family of nine and my father is from a family of five. I win.


----------



## Tailsy

Good grief. This religion is ridiculous.


----------



## Adriane

It's an odd feeling, knowing that my father is 49 and I'm 18, that he was born when his father was 53.


----------



## Tarvos

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> My grandfather is from a family of ten, my mother is from a family of nine and my father is from a family of five. I win.


My mother is one of nine (one child died after three days though), my dad is one of six (one died after two weeks), my paternal grandmother was one of 12, my paternal grandfather is one of 14, my maternal grandfather was one of seven, and my maternal grandmother was an only child.

My family are Catholics too.

Tense adapted because most of my grandparents are deceased.

eta: I am related to the whole fucking country in other words


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ

My paternal grandad was one of 13 (they all lived into adulthood) and my dad is one of six (all lived too, though one his brothers is missing, along with his son).
They are agnostic/atheist.

My maternal grandparents are both only children and my mother has one sister.
They are Catholic.

what happen


----------



## Adriane

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> My paternal grandad was one of 13 (they all lived into adulthood) and my dad is one of six (all lived too, though one his brothers is missing, along with his son).
> They are agnostic/atheist.
> 
> My maternal grandparents are both only children and my mother has one sister.
> They are Catholic.
> 
> what happen


Someone set you up the bomb :I


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

All your base are belong to Church.


----------



## Dannichu

Ah. My maternal grandmother was one of about ten, but as I said, only three of them lived to adulthood. _Her_ mother was one of two, but her dad died aged 24, limiting the number of children. Every person in my family of my grandparents generation is dead. My family, especially my mother's side (which is particularly Irish Catholic), has a ridiculously low life expectancy.


----------



## Michi

...Christians are a minority here? That's... freaky. o.O

Well in any case, I'm atheist. XP

I forget if I already replied to this thread, but I don't think I did.


----------



## Minish

Little Monster said:


> ...Christians are a minority here? That's... freaky. o.O


I'm actually surprised there's so many of them here, I thought there'd only be about five or something judging from this forum's general attitude.

Then again, I'm used to living where Christians are a definite minority...


----------



## Adriane

Cirrus said:


> I'm actually surprised there's so many of them here, I thought there'd only be about five or something judging from this forum's general attitude.
> 
> Then again, I'm used to living where Christians are a definite minority...


My state is 92% Christian!


----------



## departuresong

Mine's 86%. That's actually a lot higher than I thought it would be.


----------



## Minish

...o_o

I'm not sure about my particular area, but as far as I know it's definitely less than 50% Christian for the whole UK. The 2001 census said something like 70% but considering other polls and such that's mainly just people raised like that who probably believe in God very vaguely if at all. In a YouGov poll 44% people said they believe in God, so yeah. I know people that call themselves Christian out of habit but aren't actually religious whatsoever.

Everywhere I've lived, people are treated as very peculiar indeed if they are a devout Christian. God bless secularism. :D


----------



## Zuu

I live in a Buckle of the Bible Belt. No, really.

"Lubbock, Texas, which is said to have more churches per capita than anywhere else in the nation"

Born and raised. In Texas I think it's like 25% Catholic, 50% Christian (other than Catholic) and then everything else is dumped in the last 25%. so 75% Christian for my state.


----------



## Tarvos

My country is.... depends on whether you count people that are officially catholic but don't go to church anymore. 43.4% is nominally Christian.

I however think that only 1.2% of catholics (26% total) actually attend mass on given Sundays. The same probably goes for protestants.

So the actual amount of religious people is much lower.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax

Ireland has 95% of people identifying as Christian and what's worrying is even if you didn't count people who weren't active participants in their faith, we still have a 97% theism rate. Atheists make up only 3% of the population.


----------



## Dannichu

Religious trends in the UK - really interesting reading. The UK has more people that identify as Jedi Knights than as Jewish and Buddhist combined.


----------



## Tailsy

Clearly UK citizens are natural wielders of the Force.


----------



## Minish

Dannichu said:


> Religious trends in the UK - really interesting reading. The UK has more people that identify as Jedi Knights than as Jewish and Buddhist combined.


That _is_ interesting. I've always loved that people actually put Jedi (my friend's parents did. :'D)

Also, _whoa_. If you ignore Jediism, paganism (including the numbers for Wiccans and Druids... and I guess the 300 Heathens even though they were misplaced into 'no religion' for some reason) is the seventh largest religion. :'D And haha, we beat Spiritualists who have a worryingly large number.


----------



## Michi

Illinois has 80% Christians, 4% other religions, and 16% no religion.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

"In the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, 80% of Alabama  respondents reported their religion as Christian (other than Catholic,)  6% as Catholic, and 11% as having no religion at all."


----------



## RedneckPhoenix

atheism.
where dat flying spaghetti monster at


----------



## Stryke

Sorry for necroposting, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I was (and still am) raised without religion as a large part of my life; my parents parents were pretty religious, but they weren't into it much, and didn't want to be a very religious family with me and my sister. So my religion is just... no religion, really. I believe in God, and a couple of miscellaneous stuff not really pertaining to any one religion, but everything else just strikes as "Um, yeah, maybe that happened, or maybe thats true, but since theres no way to tell... its a nice story, I guess?" Even my belief in God, or a higher power is a bit shaky; I believe in Him only because I believe we as a species couldn't have gotten to where we are now without a little divine intervention.


----------



## nerolyk24

Im jewish! i actually know a lot of prayers but im not orthodox or anything


----------



## Kung Fu Ferret

I'm a proud atheist. Always have been, always will be!


----------



## Flora

Hmm I don't recall what my original post was on this but I'm p sure my views have changed so

I was raised catholic, spent like all my school years in Catholic school actually, and honestly I....don't really like Catholicism.

I don't really have a specific subset of Christianity I agree with, as far as I know; my feelings are basically "pope should not be infallible, god really doesn't care who you have sex with as long as both parties are willing, don't be an asshole"

I believe that there is some creator deity out there and that they're generally a good thing, I just really don't know what they are


----------



## Jolty

i know this thread is a million years old now but is anyone else wigged out that christianity and judaism have been lumped together on the poll


----------



## Superbird

Jolty said:


> i know this thread is a million years old now but is anyone else wigged out that christianity and judaism have been lumped together on the poll


I think that's mostly because christianity shares a little bit of its mythology with Judaism. It's true that it's pretty wrong to just lump them together, especially since they're so incredibly different from each other.


----------



## Negrek

Jolty said:


> i know this thread is a million years old now but is anyone else wigged out that christianity and judaism have been lumped together on the poll


That is odd, definitely. Like, yeah, as Superbird pointed out, Christianity and Judaism are both Abrahamic religions, so I guess you could sort of justify combining them into one category on that basis? But if you're going to do that, then why is Islam separate?

The list of religions also just generally looks weird to me, but apparently this is based on UK census data... The UK has a much more different distribution of religious affiliations than the US than I was expecting! Like, I was weirded out that there would be enough Sikhs for that to be considered a major category... then again I can't actually find any data that goes out to six different groups in the US (not including atheist/unaffiliated), so maybe it's actually the next major group after Hindu here as well, it's just so small that it's not usually reported. According to this Pew Research data, it would fall under "Other World Religions," as part of just 0.3% versus over 1% in the UK data.


----------

